Lucifer/Satan is...bad?

To Hangdawg13:Let's go further! ^_^ And I am also saying that you have no valid reasons for attributing them to God. Well, no. You have established a relationship between measures of prosperity and a prosperous society. Whether you choose to call those measure LDE or CID or FBI is irrelevant. Circular arguments establish relationships that are ALREADY established. Hence they are pointless. Renaming parts of a circular argument does not change this. They are inseparable in the sense that heat is hot, and what is hot has heat. Which is to say, by defintion.You have given me no reasons as to why the collection of properties you call LDE must be Divinely Established, much less why the "divinity" is biblical in nature.The bible has mentioned them, yes. But so has Confucius. Is Confucius divine? Can't he be the source of LDE? How about Plato? I agree that perfect equality is a hypothetical and unattainable situation. Judges are not asked to be objective in all decision in his/her life; only when he/she passes judgment. To be objective in making ONE decision, after careful consideration, is not that difficult. Especially after you have spent 6 years of your life in law school learning how to do precisely that.We expect professionals to be objective when they are making important decisions that will affect others for the rest of their lives. But we allow them subjectivity in choosing what they like to wear, what pets to keep, and what's for breakfast (and sometimes lunch too).Food for thought:Should we invalidate modern medicine because of malpractice?Should we invalidate education because teachers make mistakes?Similarly, should we declare the justice system as a subjective one simply because judges and jury sometimes err? Wait. Are you saying that Christianity is somehow not a religion?An answer that will satisfy me? Simple. Something that makes more sense than other possibilities.By the way, I don't fit the definition of Atheist. LDE is a Christian concept in the sense that they called the bunch of properties "LDE" when no one else does.You create a concept of morality called LDE. LDE dictates that certain criterias of a society must exist for it to prosper. Since all the societies which prosper have at least some of these criteria, you claim that they follow LDE.Now consider:I create a concept of an organism called Piggywiggy. Piggywiggys can breath, talk, type, walk, and think. Can you do all these things? Yes? Then you are a Piggywiggy!You have to understand that the criteria of LDE is not restricted to Christianity. Moral philosophers have raised similar, if not identical, points over the ages. To me, Christians merely took all the ideas considered "moral", grouped them together, and wrote "By God" on the front cover. Surprisingly, I can do the same for any other religion too. No I can't. Similarly, can you find me a person who is not a Piggywiggy?The term is not the problem. My problem is the circular argument. How, exactly, did you come up with those scores? Which of the LDEs did you give greater or lesser weight in the calculation of those figures? Were all the LDEs given equal weighting? Why or why not?Please don't tell me those are subjective scores you made up on the spot (approximate or otherwise). Mate, more than 99% of the world's population has never heard of the term "LDE". I myself had no idea what it meant until 2 days ago. If this "ultimate standard" you're talking about is LDE, then effectively, no one in the world recognises it. If by LDE you meant "what we've been doing for the last 5000 years", then I don't see how we can "forget" it.If we are all devout Buddhists, the world will be a perfect society.If we are all devout Mormens, the world will be a perfect society.If we are all devout Shintoists, the world will be a perfect society.If we are all devout Muslims, the world will be a perfect society.Ditto any other religion in the world.Christianity is far from unique in this sense, my friend. This is so ridiculous! You're saying that if people are crappy and arrogant, then they will not follow laws. But if they are crappy and arrogant, they won't follow LDE either! The key to having people who are not crappy or arrogant in a society is education and parental guidance.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Sleeping Dragon,
I apologize for the belated reply, but it is unavoidable right now. I like your questions and we'll see if I have good answers/explanations. In order for me to get your points addressed I will need to reply in sections, so:Your first definition: By necessity Satan is against God i.e. "other side of the SAME coin". No Satan equals NO CHOICE. Is he against society's morals (we will use the U.S. I guess) the somewhat, yes, because if you think of lying/stealing/murdering that is immoral/bad/etc and is punished by laws. If Satan does exist then the thing that is "wrong" with him is, imnsho, there is no challenge. Not sure but I think it takes more energy doing what's right...or maybe just making the choice

SD,
As for the last part of your post I would have to say that much of what Hollywood and storytellers before them have done falls into the category of creative license when it comes to what Satan has actually done to mankind. But, as far as I can tell who (God/Satan) will do what to mankind is being told by God...somewhat one-sided for all the recruitment that is supposedly going on by Satan, or is it that Satan works in even more mysterious ways than God?We know God has meted out punishment on mankind in ways I have yet to see attributed to Satan...however, maybe that is because it's a toss-up:1) Either take credit for the show of power despite the level of destruction(Flood)on mankind/earth.....OR
2) Allow people to think Satan did it (Flood)and maybe people will decide to bet on Satan since God obviously could not stop Satan from making the Flood occur.I think it is ridiculous to think or teach that Satan wants to undo creation (not sure where you are getting this from though?) because then his "prime objective" as related in the Bible is moot. I would say that if it did not become moot then that would mean we are in fact pawns and it is just a pissing contest between God and Satan where it only matters who has the most points at the buzzer, not the objects you are playing with.Not sure how enlightening this was, but...

That's probably the best bit of thinking I've heard from you SD. You are absolutely right in this part of your post. Satan would go unnoticed. ANd to society, he might not be immoral. Infact, if natural people/satan are so similar, then basically things like, "So why doesn't God fix this world, and why can't I rape etc.. and get what I want rather than being a goody goody" will basically become "acceptable" to society one day, as the bible says it will in the latter books (Godless times). As the moral decline starts to happen when we go away from God. Just look at how many people now choose to not marry, or split - and wreck the best way of doing things, which was told of by God. You see, the farther we get from what God says, the more "acceptable" it will seem to sin. Especially when you cannot identify sin aswell. I mean, before I was christian I would have said, "But I've never done anything wrong/sinned". Now we see that by society, some things are becoming "more" acceptable, lust is no big deal anymore, and people get 10 years jail for murder, and a big check in some cases. Now see how many yobs are created when there is no proper biblical family?So basically we become a law unto ourselves, and it's left to people to change the law each and every day. Now how can they decide what's right and wrong? If I am guilty yesterday, and innocent the next, then just what kind of moral base is it, when you can change it. So, with the bible we can see that if we err from God, we become desolate, and are given over to our lusts and wants.
With God, he doesn't change, and the moral base remains the same, rather than someone deciding that it might be okay to kill if they "make" a new law. Now how many are given over to their ways through anger of not having a childhood with a family? How many are disobedient when their parents let them get away with things? Did you know, all these things are spoken of in the bible, and if we heeded God and his ways, then there would be no decline. Now satan and unbelief go hand in hand. If the bible says "don't do that" and you want to do it, then basically, in todays age - people will likely say, "bugger that, I'm doing it - that bible's fake, and it's all a load of trash, and isn't true".Regards, Mike.Patiently awaiting a meat pie.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-16-2004 08:40 PM

All truth comes from God. If you believe biblical history, God created the first institutions with Adam and Eve who were real people, and created more as humans strayed further and further from goodness. For example, God did not make murder a capital crime until the mosaic law. If you believe man evolved physically, spiritually, and morally, then this falls apart. Like I've said, LDE is truth designed for the entire human race. Those who think objectively will find this truth. [/qs]Well, no. You have established a relationship between measures of prosperity and a prosperous society. [/qs]Is heterosexual monogamous lifelong marriage a measure of a prosperous society? Is a slave's respect for a master's authority a measure of a prosperous society or life? I discussed only LDE that you would agree on before, but if I bring up ones that are not currently popular, then that may change things. How can you expect professionals to be objective when you allow them no ultimate standard of truth to base their integrity on?What keeps people objective? Integrity. What is integrity? Strict adherence to a moral standard. Where does that moral standard come from? You say people with objectivity. I say God.
Do you see the problem?If there is no outside source and standard of truth, then objectivity finds what objectivity has found. And because no one thinks perfectly objectively, subjectivity gets mixed in. Eventually it becomes: objectivity finds what subjectivity has found.If there is an outside standard of moral truth that transcends everything, then objectivity finds it. Objectivity has been finding it for all human history. Of course no person thinks completely objectively so it becomes: objectivity finds truth and sometimes puts a subjective spin on it.This is what we find in real life. In this nation we have danced very close to this ultimate moral standard of truth. Slowly we are rejecting God's authority in it and it will no longer become an accepted ultimate moral standard of truth. With no ultimate moral standard to base people's integrity upon, they will have no inner strength of character to make themselves think objectively. And even if they do think objectively what will they find? Since there is no accepted ultimate moral truth anymore, they will find someone else's subjective opinions. It is a religion by the dictionary definition, but it is totally separate from all other religions. I know... everyone says that about THEIR religion. That is for another debate. I think all truth is divinely established. This makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand what's odd about it, unless you don't believe in God. Oh. Well how do you classify yourself? If a society followed moral principles found in the Bible and grew worse or fell apart, this would indicate the Bible is a fraud.
Why is it that muslim nations that follow the koran have no where near the prosperity of the United States which follows the principles outlined in the Bible?Right now, I don't care if you acknowledge that these concepts of morality came from God or not. Right now, I would just like you to see that there is some ultimate standard of moral truth. The idea that this standard came from God is the next logical step. Most societies contain some objective people and so they find the absolute moral standard of truth not something else. This is why we don't see new moral principles surfacing and old ones completely dying away. They are all recycled. They come and go with the integrity and objectivity of the people. The term we use to describe it makes no difference. YES! There is a reason we've been doing it for the past 5000 years and haven't moved on to something else as I explained above. Its because it's the ultimate moral standard of truth. You can't get away from it. So what do YOU believe we must all be for the world to be a perfect society? Objective? I've already pointed out the loop that leads to if there is no ultimate standard.Yes, I believe Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong. That's what you would expect if there is an ultimate truth and Christianity is it, right? That is correct. Good laws are based on the ultimate standard of moral truth. Arrogant people reject truth. You are right about the parental guidance and education. But what must kids be taught in order to not become crappy or arrogant? They must be taught to have integrity and respect for authority first, and to gain knowledge a distant second. And to be taught integrity, they must be taught a set of moral principles. Who determines what these moral principles are?Knowledge does not breed humility, objectivity, or integrity.
Ignorance is in no way connected with arrogance. In fact, the more you know, the more arrogant you are tempted to become.Edited to add:
Thank you for your detailed replies and a good discussion.Patiently awaiting.....This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-17-2004 12:31 AMThis message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-17-2004 12:35 AM

To Tagless:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:I understand and agree with most of what you said in this post. May I ask: apart from being deceitful, what immorality has Satan commited?Since he is by necessity sinful (And hence spiritually immoral), I would have to restrict my idea of morality to the social standard for the above question. What I am in fact asking is, as an entity, aside from lying, what acts have Satan personally engaged in as recorded by the bible (using it as a historical record, not a moral standard) that is commonly associated with immorality?Question: When you say "lying/stealing/murdering", are you referring to the testing of Job? When has Satan done such things?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:1) Actually, I think that the world is becoming more moral (by my standards). For example, the Geneva Convention for ethical treatment of prisoners, changing of laws in many countries to promote equal treatment of people (including the feminist movements, the equal treatment of races, as well as pursuit for homosexual rights), and banning of cruelty towards animals, just to name a few. I think this because I believe that these values are moral (personal opinion). By this token, I don't see today's society as morally declining.The world is certainly moving away from the biblical God. Due to the improvement in transportations, people from around the world can meet and live in pretty much anywhere they wanted. This means that the social model of homogeneity was shattered by the introduction of foreign elements (this happened all over the world in societies open to immigration).In order to accommodate diversity in culture, thinking, practice, religion, philosophy, and habits of so many different kinds of people, laws of open societies were revised to protect the minorities from discrimination and harm (which often go hand in hand). This is the concept of tolerance.(note: the main idea behind changes of laws is to protect those who would be treated unjustly by others. If we suppose that society B allows rape while society A prohibits it. And let us further suppose that some people (P) migrated from society B to society A. Society A will NOT change its laws to allow rape (this does NOT protect citizens of society A). However, it will make laws to protect P (the migrants from B) from being discriminated against.)You seem to believe that deviation from popularity is unique to Christianity. It is not. Buddhism has also lost much of its popularity in Asian countries with the introduction of other religions. On the other hand, Hinduism has spread to the rest of the world from India, Mormenism from USA, Wiccan from Europe (?), and Falun Dafa from China.You see, laws in even a naturally Christian society must be amended in order to accommodate diversity. What you are suggesting, whether you know it or not, is intolerance of diversity. By dictionary definition, you are a bigot.2) Read bracketed part above regarding protecting diversity. You seem paranoid about things that cannot happen. Can you describe the legislative processes one has to go through in order to pass such a law in ANY (and I do mean any) society? I expect an answer to this, by the way.*********************************************************************3) Errrr...sorry, but you are mistaken. If we all heed God and his ways, then there cannot be Hinduism, Islamism, Buddhism, Mormenism, etc. That is, there can be no diversity. That implies that if the society needs to remain "pure", it must become intolerant of diversity. Are you sure this is what you want? You're starting to sound scarily like the KKK now...(Note: I have a good example of this "perfect society" for you. It's a closed society with zero diversity called Amish. Enjoy.)4) According to Mormenism, Satan and unbelief (of Mormenism) go hand in hand.According to Catholicsm, Satan and unbelief (of Catholicsm) go hand in hand.According to Islamism, Satan and unbelief (of Islamism) go hand in hand.Do you now see the error of your ways?Allow me to repeat: Thy religion art not unique!5) Errrrrrr.....what's wrong with that? You don't abide by the Koran, the Book of Mormens, or the teachings of the Buddha.You have the idea that Christianity is unique and far above the rest, and I respect that. But you have to understand that you believing it true does not make it true. Until you get this into your head, you will remain a naive bigot.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Tagless: That's how I have always thought of the bible. As a record of two immature (yet immensely powerful) kids fighting over the love and obediance of an anthill. (Personal opinion) I had every intention to start a thread regarding the above ideas (both quotes) in the not too distant future. So far as I can tell, your way of thinking is uncannily similar to mine. ^_^ Too right. That was from movies. One of the "Warlock"s used this idea, if memory serves. It is also the central theme in "Devil's advocate" (This I'm pretty sure about). It is ridiculous, but very entertaining.Your response is interesting but not very enlightening because I think along the same line as you on this issue. I can do nothing but nod and say "Yes, that's what I thought too". Either way, I'd love to see or post on any threads that you create in the future.Thank you sincerely for your input.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:1) The above implies that if I believe in the bible, then what you say is true. If I don't, then it's not.This is somewhat different fron the claim that something is the truth whether you believe it or not. (An idea that you kept trying to promote and I kept stopping you from promoting). Wait. Your argument is:1) Things the bible says = LDE
2) LDE = truth
3) Truth = from God.
4) Therefore LDE is a universal moral standard whether you believe in Christianity or not.This is circular because God = things the bible says. Sorry, but this undermines EVERYTHING you have said about LDE because it assumes that the bible is true. If the bible has to be true in order for this to work, then it is not a universal truth.1) I say that "I am God".
2) "I am God" is the truth.
3) All truth comes from me.
4) Therefore I am God whether you believe me or not.If you can find the flaw in reasoning in the analogy above, look at what you have said and you will find the same (though perhaps less obvious) flaw.*********************************************************************2) Oh! In that case I will retract my agreement on LDE being a valid standard for anything. It changes things alright. I am now strongly against it ^_^. By punishing them severely if we can show that they are biased in their judgment? It really is that simple. Last time I checked, people abide by laws because they are jailed if they fail to do so. Judges are objective in passing judgments because it is a legal and professional requirement. Their integrity is reinforced by their fear of punishment. Does this clarify things?I have a clear case (currently in discussion with jar in this thread) that spiritual/Christian morality is a contradictory concept. You may wish to read some of our posts on that topic.*********************************************************************3) You're confusing laws with law-executors. Laws are objective if they are not biased. Such is a standard of morality. Law execution is a (or more accurately, several) professions. The first sentence is vague, bordering on the line of contradictory. A religion is a religion is a religion is a religion.Christianity either is one or it isn't. If it is, then please, start treating it like one. If it isn't, please tell me why. I hope your reasons are convincing.*********************************************************************4) Hahahahahaha......what's odd with Wiccan, unless you don't believe in witchcraft and magic? What's odd with Buddhism, unless you don't believe his/her teachings. This is funny ^_^. Can't you tell? ^_^
Does it matter? ^_ '
Why? Errrr...well, it's kinda hard because the concept of "moral principles found in the Bible" differ from Christian to Christian. For one thing, your idea of spiritual morality and jar's, or WILLOWTREE's differ by a long shot. "Moral according to the bible" to you may be immoral to them, and vice versa.Also, no nation that I know of would take the risk of dismantling their existing justice system and choose to follow the rules that you call LDE. No nation that I know of has followed LDE completely in history. So I am afraid that your proposal is improbable and the idea unfalsifiable (cannot determine if it is fraud or not).Which reminds me. How DID you get the prosperity scores on countries your last post? I couldn't seem to find them on the net, but I'm quite sure that the WTO or WHO have come up with something similar. Kindly enlighten me? *Warning!* *Warning!* *Warning!* *Warning!* *Warning!* *Warning!*Be careful of what you're doing my friend. If claims are clothes, the one above is a G-string (more holes than substance).How did you measure prosperity? If you are saying that USA is more prosperous than Muslim countries, state why you think so. Quote statistics. Surprise me.Secondly, as stated by MANY MANY people on the "religion in government thread", USA laws did not come from the Bible.*********************************************************************5) Are you asking if there are unchanging core values in laws among different societies?I cannot say if an absolute moral standard exists, but I can tell you that I believe there are values that are commonly held by most societies today (e.g. possession, safe from harm, freedom of speech, etc.)I think that all these "core values" been dismissed at some point in time by some societies. Allow me to explain:If all the countries in the world today value A, B, C,and D.I believe that there were times in history when a society somewhere must have dismissed A. Some other society may have dismissed B, while another may have dismissed C, and yet another has shunted D. I don't think that a society can exist with the exclusion of all the core values that we support today (punish murder, theft, harming of the innocent, etc.), but I think societies can exist quite happily without some of them. Thus I don't believe in an unchanging list of core values. I have given my point some thought and I have decided that I was wrong before. I can think of not one law in the history of the world that has remained unviolated by even one rogue society. Can you give me an example.*********************************************************************6) I don't believe in a perfect society ^_^. However, I DO believe in a diverse and peaceful one. You know, the one you live in, where you are judged not by your colour, race, culture or religion? A society closest to perfection, in my opinion, is one where diversity is encouraged and equal treatment is promoted. That sounds very close to what we have right now, doesn't it? There is no need for an ultimate standard, is there? Why is the goodness of laws and truth related? Well, if you have ever had a kid, you would know that:1) First step in promoting morality is "whatever you say, goes". You cannot explain to a 3 year old why he/she should not shift the car into neutral while you're driving, you can only tell him/her not to play with the gear stick.2) Second step: Explain morality in very simple forms. For example, you should not hit Toby because you would not like it if Toby hits you back.3) Third step: Once the kid reaches a certain level of complexity, introduce them to culture and laws: we do things this way because we are English/Spanish/American. We don't kill people because if you do, you will be put in jail. Note that we talk about consequences, not why.4) Last step: With the emergence of abstract thinking, the child can reason, discuss, weigh factors and ultimately create their own personal values. Their sense of morality will, to a large degree, be determined by the first 3 steps. They will deduce the "why" of "right" and "wrong" and decide if they want to comply with it.
Their sense of morality will be their own. Children's values need not be identical to their parents (and rarely ever are) because they were born into different societies and different times. Thus morality itself changes over time.You should expose yourself to the realms of child psychology, it will help in our discussion.In answer to your question, parents and teachers determine what standards of morality their children are exposed to. The child him/herself determines what to keep and what to throw away.*********************************************************************7) You do understand that you'll have to explain this? You took the term "education" to mean the learning of academic knowledge. This is not what I meant.For example, you go to school. You are not explicitly taught how to interact with other people. You are not taught explicitly why hurting people is wrong. However, being in a classroom with 20 other children for 5-8 hours a day means that you are forced to learn social interactions. If you grab the toy off Toby, someone else will grab your toy. If the strongest child grabs all the toy, he/she will be ostracised by the group. These are morals you learn from experience. You learn a large part of morality -what is right and wrong - from experience, not knowledge. Education is both knowledge and experience.You really should study a bit of psychology.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

All truth comes from God whether or not you believe it came from him. You cannot disprove this nor can I prove it (at least right now). Most people when they look at the universe or nature decide that it must have all come from a supreme being. Similarly, I have looked at the cycles in human history and the way people work related to arrogance and humility and decided that there is an ultimate moral truth that must have come from God. Humility and objectivity find the truth. Human wisdom does not, because it is arrogant. Humbly and objectively search out the matter about you being God and see if it is true. I think you will find it is not. Now humbly and objectively search out the matter of the Bible being true."The intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." "The wisdom of the wise, I will make foolish." "The foolishness of God is greater than man's wisdom." Oh my gosh, I can't believe you said that. Surely you don't really believe that? There must come a point in every person's life, hopefully around the teenage years, when they stop doing things for fear of getting a spanking and start doing them because they know what is right and wrong. Of course if you take away their moral standard of right and wrong and God's authority in it, all they have left is their conscience which can be destroyed through arrogance.Your idea that a society can function where people have no integrity, but only obey or sneak around the law for fear of punishment is ludicrous. Unless you have a totalitarian society, but I don't think either one of us wants that.A free society stays free by the integrity of its people. Then why do so many people in every professsion break the laws? Sure fear of punishment keeps people in line somewhat, but it tends to make them a lot more sneaky too. People think its ok to do anything as long as you don't get caught.
Again, this is just nuts. It is a product of new age psychological mumbo jumbo. I figgered atheist or agnostic as you have no beliefs that I can see besides evolution. And God certainly does not enter into your reasoning. Well, Jar doesn't even believe the Bible is from God, only a guide to Him written by fallible men. So if a Christian doesn't believe in an absolute standard of moral truth it WOULD be hard for him to agree with anyone who does. If people are to agree on the "moral principles found in the Bible" they must first agree that are there by God and that they are the ultimate standard. And then objectivity, a virtue of varying strength from person to person, finds the truth. This is a completely different subject and I do not have time to go into it now.
In fact this debate has grown too large and time consuming for me to keep answering everything. Ah, changing the point to keep me from gaining ground. Of course no society run by fallible humans can continually and completely adhere to LDE.Sigh... I'm growing very tired of this debate especially seeing that you disagree with anything that leads to God. It is only recently that the ultimate standard is being attacked in America; many people still have integrity. See what happens in 50 or a hundred years when no one believes in an ultimate standard and has no integrity. Gah... perhaps you should try to throw off your dogma for a moment and try to see things from my viewpoint if you really want to understand anything I'm trying to say. How naive this is... And these people will have the right to vote. Can't you see the danger and instability? Where do the parents and teachers get their standards? If they cannot provide any authority to back their beliefs, they must simply say, "because I said so and you will not get cookie if you do not obey". Children "will deduce the "why" of "right" and "wrong" and decide if they want to comply with it."Can you not understand?I think this debate is becoming pointless.

Well, that's assuming that I would be intolerant, which I never even mentioned!!!! Now that's a mighty assumption highlighted in yellow. Though basically there being no more false religions would be a good thing - yes, but that doesn't mean I won't tolerate them if they insist upon their religion. Even if God says worship him only, then that doesn't mean he says "obliterate anyone who is of another religion". Infact he says love your neighbour and enemy. He says do not judge, and tolerate everyone. He says if someone strikes you, "turn the other cheek".There are some pretty big judgements of me here. Saying I sound like the "KKK"?? I fail to see how you can derive that from my post.In christian countries, like the UK, there is a huge toleration for other people. My city is even the European "capital of culture" for 2008. If anything, in christian countries, we can see that there is huge toleration. Now maybe your real enemy is not I, but those who attack buildings and would simply kill off any christian in their own country. Erm. I'll give you a clue or twon, those on death row? What about the big "A" debate? Well for a start, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it isn't true. But, in an attempt to put you back on topic; If these things you haven't noticed are already happening, like killing prizoners for example, then just how easy will it be for satan to trick you? Already you are so self-righteouss that you have called a fellow servant a; So you see, so easily you are confused with your silly self-righteouss mindset. So far, you have me down as a naive racist bigot, when I haven't even mentioned such things. I hope you can live with yourself after judging me so harshly for no apparent reason. And you believing it untrue doesn't make it untrue. Yet you say "what's wrong with that". You are sounding hypocritical.Patiently awaiting some new lie.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-17-2004 05:12 PM

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your post.Reply to your post:1) Alriiiiiiiight. So now you summon the "I cannot refute your reasonable and logically valid argument but God is smarter than you so I will believe him instead" argument.Humility and objectivity fails to make your God any more realistic than the notion that I am God. You seem to have a really skewed perception (read: no idea) of what "humility" and "objectivity" mean.*********************************************************************2) Read it again. Believe it. If the punishments employed in our justice systems are not used to deter law-breaking behaviours, please tell me what they are there for.You may think that the only source of morality is Christian teachings and you therefore shunt the law. You are welcome to think that way, but if you are going to convince others that what you believe is not a pack of half-baked lies, you'll have to do better than circular arguments and unsupported claims. I made this point in point 6 of my last post already. Next time, kindly read the entire post through before replying. Welcome to reality, Hangdawg13.In case you haven't found out, some people's idea of morality is WAY different from mine or yours. Yet, being the tolerant person that I am, I will not say that they are wrong unless they break the law in the society I am living in. Imagine a world where you can do the same *dreamy eyes*.By the way, integrity means "abiding by a moral standard". This moral standard is different for everyone. The fact that other people's moral standard differs from yours does not make them wrong. It just makes them different. Embrace tolerance towards diversity my friend. This comment is approaching mike_the_wiz's level of vagueness. What is a free society? How do you define free? How did we get from moral to free? You should define your terms before making such claims, otherwise you would become idiosyncratic.*********************************************************************3)Because:
1) Greed.
2) They think they can get away with it.
3) They are forced to. More sneaky? Errr.....yes. Yes it does. What's your point?OF COURSE some people thinks it's ok if they don't get caught. Why do you think we have "law enforcements"? These public departments are specifically targetted at those people. Thanks for acknowledging the state of the present day society. It is new age in the sense that it is not old age, it is psychological in the sense that it is what people think about, and it is mumbo jumbo in the sense that it is something you don't understand, fail to understand, scared of understanding, or refuses to understand.*********************************************************************4) I...believe in evolution? Well! You learn something new everyday! I certainly didn't know that evolution, a scientific theory, is also a religion!? Wow!If God does not enter into my reasoning (I don't know what this means, by the way), then why hasn't admin kicked me out of "Faith and Beliefs" forum yet? Read my opening post. See the word "Christianity"?I rest my case.*********************************************************************5)You replied... ...to this... Yes. Proves my point, doesn't it?*********************************************************************6)Ok. In your next post. All I ask is that you provide two pieces of vital information. You can ignore the rest of this post if you can tell me:a) Where/how did you got the prosperity scores on countries in post 65?b) You mentioned my "dogma". Please kindly state what my "dogma" is, and why it should be considered thus.*********************************************************************7) Actually, you misread my sentence. I meant that there is no law that can be considered core and unchanging. I can find no law that all societies must abide by in order to exist.For example: killing of innocent. The Incas used to hold blood sacrifices, yet the empire was not toppled by angry mobs screaming for morality. Instead, it was a strong and intact empire up to the point of treachery on the part of the Spaniards."gaining grounds"? ARRRRR! You're as bad as mike_the_wiz! Challenging your dogmatic beliefs is tiring because it requires you to analyse everything that you took for granted.*********************************************************************8) "The world is ending tomorrow" has been preached for the last 2000 years. Don't you people ever get tired? your idea of integrity scares me. State what my "dogma" is. Explain why it is dogma. Or retract this sentence.I hate it when people make unsupported claims. I have 1 word for you: Piaget. Do some research and you will realise how naive you are. Well.....your sense of morality differs from mine. Should I be scared or should you?To me, you are a source of danger and instability, yet I would not say that you are wrong (only different) because you have not broken the law, and I am a tolerant person. From their teachers and their parents. Isn't it obvious?Authority? The law is the over-riding one. Parents are a form of authority. And schools are institutions of authority: their values and morals were assessed by the local governments before they get their licence to educate our kids. And you have a problem with this because...?*********************************************************************Please number your points. We can keep track of our arguments better and you can make sure that I won't be ignoring any questions I can't answer ^_')Patiently awaiting your reply. (Note: reply from me will be after Wednesday)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:********************************************************************* (http://www.dictionary.com)See defintion number (1).*********************************************************************
1) Firstly, you don't "mention" intolerance, you show it.Secondly, by stating that... ...you're insinuating that all other religions are evil. This is demonstrably a failure to "recognise and respect" other religions (unless you normally show respect by association with Satan) and thus your attitude falls under the category of intolerance.Do you want more examples? Assumption? If we all "heeded God and his ways" then we would all be Christians, yes? If we are all Christians, then how can there be "Hinduism, Islamism, Buddhism, Mormenism, etc."? Your argument amuses me.And who said anything about obliterating anything? ARRRRRRR! You're reading words I can't see! I must be going blind! To state that other religions are "false" is not "recognising and respecting" their beliefs, yes? So by defintion, you are being intolerant and a bigot. You really should buy a dictionary and start looking words up. What is the KKK famous for? Intolerance. Now read this post again and proceed to feel embarassed.*********************************************************************
2) I can't see how that can be the case if your attitude is representative of your city. But fortunately (for diversity's sake) it is not.Also, can you show me why you believe the UK to be a "Christian Country"? Errr....and that answers the question...how? Suppose that you are on death row and I want to kill you. Tell me how. Very good. Every night, before you sleep, you should recite this sentence to yourself over and over and over again, substituting all the names of religions in the world for "something" every time you recite it. In case I'm not making my self clear, I will give you some starters:Well for a start, just because you don't like Buddhism, doesn't mean it isn't true.Well for a start, just because you don't like Islamism, doesn't mean it isn't true.Well for a start, just because you don't like Mormenism, doesn't mean it isn't true.etc. Ummmmmm....I think you're showing your inherent vagueness again. I have no idea what this means. Explain?*********************************************************************3) Point 1: You have demonstrated intolerance and I have given 2 examples above. Face the facts. Look up the words "tolerance", "intolerance", and "bigot" if you don't believe me, and you can go a long way in convincing yourself that, yes, you fit the description.Point 2: Not all bigotry is based on race, and I have never called you racist. No doubts after you have looked up the word "bigot" and found out that you have made an ass of yourself, you would proceed to completely ignore this point and refuse to apologise for falsely accusing me. That's ok, I'm used to it.I repeat: look up the word before you make foolish statements.Point 3: You fit the defintion perfectly. I hope you can live happily knowing what a bigot is and therefore what you are. I said "what's wrong with that" in response to: So tell me, what IS wrong with people who don't believe the bible to NOT believe that bible and therefore not do what the bible says? I don't see what is hypocritical, perhaps you can elaborate?*********************************************************************By the way, as you can see I have numbered the points in my post. Please number your responses correspondingly. This makes it easier to follow arguments in a long discussion.Patiently waiting your reply. (My reply will be after Wednesday)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

I'm not embarrassed at all. You however, are simply being ridiculous."satan and unbelief" going hand in hand is NOT justification for your judgements of me. ANYONE can read my initial post to you and in no way conclude the self-righteouss rant that you proceeded to spew from your butt.I do recognise and respect other religions. Other religions do "Believe". How silly is your comment? Many even believe in the same God I do, the God of Abraham. There's even a debate that says the Muslim God is the same as the christian one, ask Jar about that!!
So how silly are your judgements about me:A. Very silly
B. incredibly stupid, or
C. This seems to be turning into an impression of you.Fact is, satan doubts and wants us in hell, and said "IF you are the son of God" to Christ. SO, there is obviously a basic similarity between satan and the unbeliever, their doubt goes hand in hand. Next time, just admitt you've went off on a silly self righteouss rant before getting yourself in knots.SO you have completely disregarded the fact that I have not intolerated anyone. I completely respect anyone's belief in another religion. WHat I AM talking about is a downfall in society, through a biblical explanation, which you are not tolerant of. And your point is?Yes we would, but that doesn't mean I do not tolerate other religions. There's Muslim Mosques all over my country - and I would treat all who attend the same as I would anyone else, with respect and tolerance. Your accusations are unfounded boisterous rancid undigested colon content, Straight from your bum. Next time, simply be more tolerant of my biblical view instead of spreading your seeds of discontent.Advice: Going off on a big posting full of point A, 1 signpost 12, don't make you right and me wrong. Heed the warning, and release your head from your bum. And I don't need a dictionary to read words that I already know of. So next time, don't add so much fiction to my posts. Next time, read carefully before going on about "tolerance". I mean huh??? Wiz, bang, smoke - confusion.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-18-2004 03:15 PM

SD, this debate HAS become pointless. I naively (as someone pointed out I am very young (18)) let your politeness make me think you were interested in learning something. Since you already KNOW everything from psychology, and are not prepared to accept anything different even if it be reality I cannot continue this debate.I HAVE learned the importance of politeness and good manners in getting information out of people, as I would not have put nearly so much time into explaining my beliefs if I did not genuinely believe you were interested in learning something. I have also learned that nothing about the debated topic can be learned by debaters in a debate because neither debater recognizes the other's authority. The whole debate is simply to prove one's authority rather than the truth of the arguments being debated.Thank you for this good debate.

---

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2